Talk:Shaft bow

Luokki

A luokki is a shaft bow. In English it is a rather obscure topic today; it was better known back when horses were a major means of transportation in the English speaking world, and "shaft bow" appears in many translations of Leo Tolstoy's works. I have added some content to the article about that. --Una Smith (talk) 22:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Does "luokki harness" refer to more than the shaft bow? If so, what else is included? --Una Smith (talk) 00:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

A couple of sources describe shaft bow and collar together as "shaft harness". In a troika, the middle horse has a shaft bow and collar and the outside horses have breastplates. --Una Smith (talk) 02:56, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking into this more, it seems they mean harness with a shaft bow and collar belongs in the class of "shaft harness", as opposed to "trace harness". That is a distinction not made on Wikipedia at this time. --Una Smith (talk) 05:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The creator of this article is a Finn, and the same person who did all the work on the Troika article. This person writes outstanding English for being a second language, but every now and then, some grammatical and useage errors slip in. I think that one would want to have very good sources to say "shaft harness" when not referring to an entire harness, only the front sections...This article is one of many about harness parts, and the Russian term translates "arch" not "arch harness", so I think it's OK to leave it as is. Montanabw^(talk) 04:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Luokki harness, when used by me in this article, refers to the whole harness that is used with shafts, and includes the breaststrap (if I'm right when I suppose this is the strap that goes around the chest just behing the withers), the collar, and the arch bow. However, it seems that in Russia there have existed harness types with a shaft bow but no collar, or with a collar that is more like a strap to keep the shaft bow in the correct position. This is getting into the realm of OR though. Pitke (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

In File:Troika akron.jpg the two outside horses are wearing breastplates also known as breaststraps, instead of a collar and shaft bow. All three are wearing a girth, meaning the strap around the body behind the withers. Likely we can find sources for all this. Pitke, it sounds like your "luokki harness" should be rendered "shaft harness". Would you say the outside horses are not in shaft harness, rather they are in trace harness? --Una Smith (talk) 14:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Luokki harness" shouldn't be rendered "shaft harness" but should be "shaft bow harness" to differentiate it from all the other types of shaft harness. While shaft bow harness was the predominant style in Finland, shaft harness types without the shaft bow and even without the collar did and do exist.

Yes, I would say that in troika, only the middle horse is in shaft harness including the shaft bow. The side horses are in trace harness without collars. I believe this is the best picture to be found in Commons to illustrate that the side horses are pulling by traces, not shafts.

Ok, so I think I'm now getting it clearer. Girth would be the part of harness that, combined to the top tiece called fi:sila (or setolkka, or whatever it is in English), would comprise the surcingle. Pitke (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

That sila is a "saddle" although some English speakers reserve "saddle" for an item usually having an internal tree and equipped with stirrups, that a rider sits in. An example is the claim on Equestrian vaulting that the horse does not wear a saddle. A surcingle is an all-the-way-around item, used without a saddle; many English speakers reserve "girth" for the item that goes with a saddle. It's a problem of POV or, if you like, blind men and an elephant. --Una Smith (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, We need to be careful to stick to what can be documented and not go into the realm of OR. And for harness stuff, Richard New Forest is our resident expert who you want to discuss the broader stuf with. But breastcollar harnesses also attach to shafts (see fine harness for example, unless they dumped the photo again). About the only time you see horses hitched to something with just traces is a plow, where braking is not a problem, or where, as in the troika, it appears that the center horse is the one used for the brakes, the others only pull. But yes, a harness can have a "saddle." That is very common harness terminology, it isn't just limited to riding saddles. It is the support piece attached to the harness girth. A surcingle refers to several different pieces of tack in English, and one training tool that is called a "surcingle" in US English is a "roller" in UK English. And there is a type of surcingle used with racing saddles too, actually. Not an issue of POV, just an issue of learning the correct terminology, with acknowledgment of legitimate regional dialects and the differences that occur because of it. Montanabw^(talk) 04:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Do stop calling me an expert, BW!

LOL! You know more about harness stuff than the rest of us, so "expert" you are! Sorry dude, it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the terms "shaft harness" and "trace harness", but that may just be my ignorance, as they do make sense (I'll see if I can find out more). Whether using a full collar or breast collar, van harness ("fine harness") uses traces to pull the vehicle – the pull goes from the collar through the trace straps back to the vehicle, and the shafts take no pull; I think this must be what's called "trace harness". The harness does attach to the shafts, but not for pull – only for braking, balance and steering (by the breeching and the tug loops). However, cart harness, in the Western European tradition, has no proper traces: the collar is attached by short traces to loops on the shafts, and so the horse pulls the vehicle by the shafts, with no direct attachment to the vehicle . The shaft-bow harness seems to do the same, and so "shaft harness" does cover both these quite well. Plough harness also uses traces, but is otherwise similar to cart harness. And yes, the support piece on harness is called a saddle.

What I call "fine harness" has no collar, just a breaststrap...? Or by "collar" there, did you mean the breastcollar? Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd assumed that fine harness just meant posh harness, but it looks as if I was wrong. Posh harness in the UK would commonly (but not always) have a full collar, like in this photo of carriage harness. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, another example of the "separated by a common language" problem. Here, I sort of think the term "fine" has as much to do with the horse and handler as the equipment (being the class for the highest-stepping animals, drivers wearing black tie evening attire, etc...). We also have pleasure driving, which is also the light equipment, but with horses that don't have to wear "clown shoes" and knock their chins with their knees. The horse collar harness starts showing up in the USA big time in draft horse showing and of course in combined driving competition, plus parades, exhibitions, etc. And, of course, actual real working animals. Montanabw^(talk) 05:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In principle the side horses in a troika could brake, in the same way as a pair either side of a pole does. The pictures in Troika (driving) do show them with breeching, although there seems to be no connection from this to the shafts, so perhaps this is not usual (I'd have thought that this was one of the potential advantages of a three-abreast arrangement though).

There is considerable scope for articles on the various types of harness... Richard New Forest (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that first an expansion of horse harness is in order, and then, as we did with saddle, we can spin off the sections that become big enough to warrant their own articles, leaving behind a summary. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Houston, we have a request: Saddle (harness). Pitke (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure there's enough material to make an article – could perhaps have a section in Horse harness. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and in fact, I think we already have it listed. However, a redirect is in order and maybe I'll create something. Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Pitke, here you go: Harness saddle. --Una Smith (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Collar bow

In this translation collar bow and shaft bow are two different items. --Una Smith (talk) 02:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Good sleuthing on the English term. That one had us all stumped. Montanabw^(talk) 02:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Collar bow would sound like one half of a two-part collar. Pitke (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2009

(UTC)

Flexible coupling, low point of attachment etc

The text as just restored remains misleading.

All proper four-wheeled vehicles must have flexible shaft (or pole) couplings, otherwise the weight of the horse would break the shafts every time it went over a hillock, or the weight of the vehicle would hang on the shafts as it went over a dip; the same applies to sleighs, unless the runners are very short. Similarly two-wheeled vehicles must have rigid shafts (or poles), as that's what keeps them balanced. These points are universal to all harness types.

Again, the low attachment point of these harnesses is nothing to do with the shaft bow – it's a feature any harness type can include if desired. Consequently the upward pull is also not a feature of the shaft bow as such.

I suppose these features could be mentioned, but as they can't be attributed to this type of harness in particular I think the material would go better in Horse harness.

I'm a bit puzzled as to how the shaft bow could be regarded as a separate development of the throat-girth harness, as it uses similar breast-collars or full collars as other harnesses. I can't find the bit in the ref where it says this, and in fact the opposite is implied by the text on pp 327 & 328. This book is fascinating, but I'm a little doubtful about the author's practical experience and it has some curious omissions – for example, he only mentions "hames" once, and seems unaware that the horse collar is really just padding for the hames.

I'm not clear which bit the ref is for... Is it just the historical part, or the upward pull part as well, or what? Would it help to break the two into different paras and ref them separately?

Good work on Harness saddle, by the way – it makes much more of an article than I'd thought. Richard New Forest (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's critically important to avoid anything that smacks of OR in this article and be careful even about what we call a "source." The only person, if anyone, who has any first hand knowledge of this is Pitke, and the person with the most knowledge of harness stuff is Richard. If one of these folks can't verify it, then I suggest we leave it out. Montanabw^(talk) 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Upward pull sound very odd. At least in Finland it's been the saddle/surcingle/girth thing that has kept the shafts in place vertically, and the shaft bow has just kept them away from the horse's sides, i.e. in place horizontally. Pitke (talk) 11:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

We're not talking about the fixing of the shafts to the horse here, but the point of attachment of the pull to the vehicle. If this (whether shafts or traces) is level with the point of pull on the horse (the collar or breast collar), then the force on the vehicle is directly forward. This is fine for a free-rolling load on smooth ground, but it means that an obstruction such as deep mud, deep snow or lumpy ground can impede progress, especially if the wheels are small, or of course if there are no wheels as on a sleigh.

If on the other hand the point of attachment is low down, then there is an upward element in the pull. When rolling or sliding freely this will make no difference, but if the vehicle is stuck in snow or behind a bump, the partly upwards force will tend to lift its front over the obstacle; the equivalent downward pull on the horse will also give it a little more traction.

In the Western European tradition most vehicles are set up with a near-horizontal pull, and for rough ground the wheels are made very large, as a larger wheel rolls over an obstacle much more easily. I have a nice old gig (c 1900?) with wheels of 130 centimetres (4 ft) diameter; this would probably roll up a step of about 30 centimetres (12 in), and is very smooth indeed on a flat road. Not tried it in the snow, as we don't get any to speak of... Farm wagons and carts were often made with even larger wheels. Richard New Forest (talk) 14:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)